[SoothingDave]

It's called cable bleed.

If someone (or their child) is so desperate to sit around and switch back and forth to the Playboy channel in hopes that the scrambling might unscramble and allow himself a sub-second glimpse of a boob, there are bigger problems here.

It is simply out of the federal gov't jurisdiction to dictate what cable providers may or may not provide.

SD

[hinterlander]

It is simply out of the federal gov't jurisdiction to dictate what cable providers may or may not provide.

I agree. But is it not within the government's jurisdiction to keep the cable company pushing something into my house that I have asked them to stop doing?

Let me give you an imperfect, but apt, example. Most people, including conservatives, supported the creation of a "do not call" list, blocking telemarketers from calling whenever they wanted and punishing them if they did call someone on the list. The answer to someone in who is on the "do not call" list but receives calls anyhow is not to simply tell them: "if you don't like it, get rid of your phone service." Rather, it is to enforce the law.

The same thing applies to cable bleed. Cable companies are not supposed to allow it to happen. But Roberts' firm and Playboy argued differently.

As far as your point about people seeing a boob for a second or two, you're right, there is a bigger problem. Which is why the law was created in the first place. Cable bleed is a way for the porn companies to get their product into your home against your wishes, and to get your kids hooked.

I work with hundreds of teenagers a week, trust me, the cable bleed of porn is a major issue for teenage males.